I mentioned in one other thread about those five who had been to National Assembly Pakistan in 1974 to defend the faith. The video of the debate, inspite of our repeated requests, is never shown on TV. That time the live debate in National Assembly was not shown either. Now the orthodox Mulla has published a book which is a dialogue between the Attorney General and our 3rd Caliph. In that dialogue our 3rd Caliph is shown speechless on those questions which our kids can answer without any difficulty.

Maulana Abu-al-Ata ( RA ) is second from right. He translated Kitab-e-Aqdas in Urdu.

Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Mazhar Advocate ( RA ) proved for many languages that they are traced to Arabic. He is second from left.

( 2 ) Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Mazhar ( RA ): He was head of the Ahmadiyya Jama'at of the city Faisalabad. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad ( AS ) proved that Arabic is the Mother of all languages. Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Mazhar ( RA ) proved for 51 languages traced to Arabic including English.

If you put children together a lot, they start to invent their own language. Making languages is part of what makes us human. So naturally, languages have been invented independently in many different parts of the world. Arabic is part of the "modern" branch of the semitic languages, which includes Hebrew. Sanskrit is the oldest extant example of the indo-european language family. Although it is much older than Arabic, it is not the origin of Arabic. And Arabic of course is not the origin of the older languages.

I did actually read the beginning of the English text. It is nonsense. Sorry, but I see no value in it at all. We know an awful lot about how humans learn and make languages and about the history of the various language families. This author simply does not know the things that anyone who has studies history and linguistics has to know

Hi Ahsan,Given that this post was not made in the "discussion of topics unrelated to the Baha'i faith" forum, I question why it matters, as far as I know, belief in Arabic as origin of languages or otherwise is not a fundamental of Baha'i belief.Whilst it is valid to conduct scientific debate, the most that could be changed is the consensus of the scientific community, if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's speculation on the matter were to one day prove to be correct, I would be surprised if it should influence even one Baha'i to become Ahmadi.Kind regards,Daniel.

danieldemol wrote:Hi Ahsan,Given thatthis post was not made in the "discussion of topics unrelated to the Baha'i faith" forum, I question why it matters, as far as I know, belief in Arabic as origin of languages or otherwise is not a fundamental of Baha'i belief.Whilst it is valid to conduct scientific debate, the most that could be changed is the consensus of the scientific community, if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's speculation on the matter were to one day prove to be correct, I would be surprised if it should influence even one Baha'i to become Ahmadi.Kind regards,Daniel.

(This thread has now been moved to the correct forum).

"I have desired only what Thou didst desire, and love only what Thou dost love"

BruceDLimber wrote:Further, the assertion of a Divine Messenger appearing in 1895 is in direct conflict with the Baha'i scriptures, which state plainly that there will be NO such Messenger for at least a millenium!